1

I have been having a very hard time with the English language (my first language), and no this isn't an English question as it is founded upon a philosophical concept that I doubt there are corresponding terminologies for that are readily available to people in any language discussion. If I categorize everything around me as being real, what would I call something that isn't real? I can't say not real or nothing as I am not referencing nothing. Nothing is void, null, not, but not-something or rather un-something is what it is. So unreal? But unreal also includes nothing, which I am not referencing. Something unreal could be a cartoon that never existed, never been thought of, but has the potential to exist, or never will, it isn't nothing and not real. So now I have these three things: real, nothing, unreal. Real is part of a reality, nothing is null, so unreal is part of an unreality? Unreality being a place that contains everything that isn't? Or un-is? But then comes the most frustrating part: how do I say reality, nothing, and unreality, at the same time? I could say everything, but that doesn't include nothing and un-everything. There seems to be no super inclusive terminology?

  • 1
    Parmenides said what is not, is not. So even non-being is not nothing. Your conceptual difficulties about this has a long history. – Mozibur Ullah Jan 17 '18 at 19:36
  • Something that is "unreal" can become real should the state of not being be defined without foreshadowing. So a new technology non-existent is certainly not nothing, its not real though, but it could become real, in its current state it is neither nothing nor something. I wonder if there is a conclusion to this chain of thought? At least terminology created by it... (Kinda what I am hoping to find) – Terran Jan 18 '18 at 2:14
  • Could there be a single term that means 'reality, nothing, and unreality, at the same time' ? Invent a term, 'zink'. When I say X is zink I mean, then, that X is real, nothing, and unreal : what possible state of affairs could this describe ? Would a dichotomy serve you better ? Existent/ non-existent ? If X is real, it exists (is existent). If X is nothing then it is non-existent. If X is unreal it is also non-existent. I have no confidence that this will satisfy you but I also have no confidence that the multi-purpose term you are looking for (pardon the word !) exists. Intriguing question. – Geoffrey Thomas Jan 18 '18 at 18:16
  • Well, until I have a reason to do otherwise, I guess I would have to invent one for now, following your advice, bringing an "unreal" word into reality, lol. Well, decided I would use a latin base, messed around a bit, and came up with this mouthful term: interactnulfigment. Or just actnulfigment. Which is the combination of words in the phrase: "inter figmentum, actualitas, et nullitatis" meaning between fiction, reality, and nullity... I don't speak latin so I don't know how correct that phrase is... But interactnulfigment is the closest I got so far XD – Terran Jan 18 '18 at 19:28
  • Other possible candidates?: Inter-Fictonullreality, Fictonullreal, Inter-Fictionullreality, Fictionullreality (sounds like fictional reality). I don't know how I feel about using something no one would understand... – Terran Jan 18 '18 at 19:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.